In the life sciences sector, defending broad patent claims can be a tricky business, says Gordon Wright.
The English High Court judgment in Lilly v Janssen,  EWHC 1737(Pat) is a timely reminder of the difficulties of defending broad claims in the pharmaceutical and life science area.
Failure to enable the invention to be performed without undue burden is often referred to as “classical insufficiency” and failure to enable the invention to be performed over the whole scope of the claim is often referred to as “excessive claim breadth” (or Biogen) insufficiency.
Janssen was the proprietor of a patent claiming the use of antibodies to the peptide Aß for the treatment of diseases characterised by amyloid deposit, such as Alzheimer’s disease. Lilly sought a declaration that use of the Aß antibody, solanezumab, which Lilly currently has in Phase 3 development for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, would not infringe Janssen’s patent.
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
European Patent Office
George Washington Law School
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
World Intellectual Property Office
patent claims, EPO, Pfizer, Novartis, Supreme Court, Federal Circuit